Restraining Government in America and Around the World

Archive for July 16th, 2010

Deroy Murdock unloads on the NAACP’s decision to condemn supposed Tea Party racism. I’m sure there are a handful of cranks and racists at Tea Party events, just as there are similar people at Kiwanis clubs, union halls, insurance conventions, and NAACP meetings. But as Deroy explains, there is nothing racist in the actions or agenda of the Tea Party movement. My two cents, for what it is worth, is that the NAACP is acting like an interest group of the Democratic Party rather than an organization genuinely focused on promoting the interest of black Americans (if they actually did care about the African-American community, school choice would be their top issue).

The NAACP is like a talking G.I. Joe doll with a cord coiled in his back. Pull it, and G.I. Joe says something manly and combative. Pull the NAACP’s string. “Racism!” squawks the shopworn voice. Pull it again. “Bigotry!” it squeals, as it has so many times before. The NAACP was totally justified when it decried the racism and bigotry that the Jim Crow South’s Democrat-led governments mandated by law. In 2010, however, screaming “racism” sounds increasingly delusional, given that America is governed by a black man whom voters comfortably elected in November 2008 and wished well, largely across the political spectrum, on Inauguration Day 2009. …If the tea-party movement really is fueled by bias, why did they invite a black man like me to address one of the first tea parties in Washington, D.C., on February 26, 2009? Why would these alleged racists invite me to rally an even bigger tea party in Manhattan on July 1, 2009? Did prejudice inspire them to let David Webb, a black man, organize that Times Square event, and also run the New York Tea Party? Did racial insensitivity lead the tea party to showcase Congress of Racial Equality national spokesman Niger Innis, Project 21’s Deneen Borelli, and other black conservatives and free-marketeers? …Some have accused the tea-party movement of being racist just because its huge crowds are mainly white. By that measure, the NAACP should organize a boycott of the New York Philharmonic. I attended its delightful concert in Central Park on Tuesday evening. Gershwin’s beautiful “Rhapsody in Blue” might as well have been a rhapsody in white. Scanning the thousands of faces on the Great Lawn, I spotted only a handful of black ones. What a racist orchestra! Yes, the tea party’s events feature few black faces. This is true at most center-right gatherings. The unfortunate fact is that black Americans tend to be liberal Democrats. President Obama won some 95 percent of the black vote. It should shock no one that those who reject most of Obama’s agenda would attract few of his most ardent supporters. Thus, the tea-party movement is no more racist than an Easter dinner is anti-Semitic because so few Jews show up to eat ham and venerate Jesus of Nazareth.

Considering the NAACP’s shameful behavior, here’s a card that should be distributed to everyone who voted to condemn the Tea Party movement. It was sent to me, by the way, by a black friend (not Deroy).

The tax benefits of LeBron James’ move to Miami have received a lot of attention, but there’s an even more interesting case on the other side of the Atlantic. The tax laws in the United Kingdom are so punitive that Usain Bolt might actually lose money if he took a big check for competing in England next month. The Tax-news.com story excerpted below reveals that many global superstars already avoid or minimize their appearance in Britain. Indeed, the top English soccer league is losing players to leagues in other nations for the same reason. The only silver lining to the story is that the U.K. government has decided to grant occasional exemptions for things like the 2012 Olympics. Wouldn’t it be a better idea, though, to just get rid of the bad worldwide tax policy that is causing all the mess?

World and Olympic sprint champion Usain Bolt may pull out of a major sprint meeting in London next month because of Britain’s severe tax rules for foreign sportsmen and women. Jamaican Bolt was expected to line up against fellow stars Tyson Gay and Asafa Powell at the Crystal Palace event but faces a situation whereby he may pay more in UK tax than he actually earns from appearing in the event. This situation stems from a House of Lords ruling against tennis star Andre Agassi in 2006, which allows HM Revenue and Customs to impose tax on a portion of foreign endorsement earnings relating to performance of the endorsement contract in the UK. Other sporting stars have already curtailed their appearances in the UK for the same reason, among them Spanish golf star Sergio Garcia, who now restricts his UK appearances to once per year in the British Open. There was some concern in sporting circles that the tax burden would mean that some of the world’s top stars may decide not to appear at the 2012 Olympic Games in London. HMRC has granted an exemption for this event and for next year’s Champions League Final to be held at Wembley, but refuses to grant individual exemptions. Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Mike Warburton, Tax Director at Grant Thornton, called the rule “stupid” and “damaging” to Britain’s sporting reputation and its economy.

I cross swords with my long-time nemesis, Christian Weller. I suspect the most interesting part of the debate, however, is when I jump on one of the hosts for asserting that the Bush years were some sort of laissez-faire episode. How often do you get to ask for drugs on national TV?